Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

General overrides specific, perhaps?


Or are you suggesting that ALL Flamers, Always must roll Dice, and always must miss on 1's? Because your point of view appears to be entirely independent of if this stratagem is being used or not.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It doesn't break though. the two rules work just fine with each other. Data sheets over ride basic rules.

Then the datasheet that says it hits automatically could override the rule that you always miss on 1s

How do you figure this? Where in the rules does it say anything about how to handle auto hit vs auto miss? Since we are being super fine in our definitions, where in the rules does it say specific overrides general and then defines specific and general rules?

Hint: it doesn't address either of these issues directly all we can do is try to interpret them via past experience. As such, my past experience has always been that "automatic" means don't roll.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
How do you figure this? Where in the rules does it say anything about how to handle auto hit vs auto miss? Since we are being super fine in our definitions, where in the rules does it say specific overrides general and then defines specific and general rules?

Hint: it doesn't address either of these issues directly all we can do is try to interpret them via past experience. As such, my past experience has always been that "automatic" means don't roll.

I was more referring to this comment

 DeathReaper wrote:
It doesn't break though. the two rules work just fine with each other. Data sheets over ride basic rules.

which was a reply to this comment

 doctortom wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Exactly. You do not have permission not to roll.

Except where it says hits automatically. That is the over-ride for the roll.

If it weren't we would have 2 rules in play if we rolled for auto hit weapons. One being hits automatically the other being always misses on a 1. ALWAYS... Therefore we cant make to hit rolls because if we roll a 1 they no longer auto hit as 1's ALWAYS miss...

On the one hand you say automatically overrides the Shooting Phase command that you MUST roll.

On the other hand, you say that a rule cannot override the shooting phase rule that 1's always miss.

Do you realize how contradictory that position is?

Anyway, please see the previous pages. There is no definition of 'autonatically' that tells you to skip or ignore rolling. It DOES, however, mean the result is predetermined. So 'automatically' is telling to override the 1's always miss rule and not giving permission to skip rolling.

It is not contradictory. (Notice the "If it weren't", meaning that if the procedure is not an over-ride for the roll....Meaning it says hit automatically and you do not roll to hit).

Hitting automatically would have to include making zero rolls to hit otherwise the game breaks if you roll any 1's as you would have something saying that this particular roll always misses and another thing saying that it always hits.

Then by that same token doesn't the game break if you use any weapons that hit automatically because the main book says you have to roll dice and the interpretation you're using for automatically hitting says you don't roll the dice?

According to death reaper, the datasheet can override the rules, but he also states that the datasheet cannot override the rules. That is contradictory. He states that if you roll and roll a 1 the game breaks because you have 2 rules telling you different things. However when it was pointed out that if you don't roll the game breaks because there are two different rules in conflict he said that the datasheet overrules the shooting rules. If that's the case then why does the datasheet not overrule the 1s always miss rule? If we don't roll to hit then we are breaking a rule. If we roll and allow 1s to still hit we are breaking a rule. If we roll and 1s miss we are still breaking a rule. I guess the only way to not break the game is to not use auto hit weapons. The datasheet HAS to be able to override basic rules or the game falls apart. The question here is what is overwritten. Does automatic mean skip rolling or hit regardless of the roll. To be honest it could be either and I really don't mind.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
How do you figure this? Where in the rules does it say anything about how to handle auto hit vs auto miss? Since we are being super fine in our definitions, where in the rules does it say specific overrides general and then defines specific and general rules?

You've asked two different questions, though you seem to think they're the same.

1. Where in the rules does it say anything about how to handle auto hit vs. auto miss?

It doesn't, explicitly. You just have one rule decreeing auto-miss in a general scenario and one rule declaring auto-hits in a specific scenario.

2. Where is it said specific overrides general?

It doesn't, but it's necessary for the game to work. Go look at the previous pages. If specific doesn't override general, than Melta weapons, Imperial Knights, Baneblades, improved Overwatch abilities and many others are conflict with the general Rulebook and the game completely breaks down.

Hint: it doesn't address either of these issues directly all we can do is try to interpret them via past experience. As such, my past experience has always been that "automatic" means don't roll.

You don't need to resort to past experience (and that's a terrible idea on its own anyway). You just need to follow generalia specialibus non derogant, which is a fancy way of saying the specific overrides the general and has been a common tool of interpretation for hundreds of years.

Relying on past experience is terrible for two reasons:

1. We all have different pasts and different experience. Who wins when our experiences conflict? How do we prioritize conflicting prior experiences (rolling to see if automatic hit weapons "Gets Hot"?). We have no common way to interpret the rules in front of us besides the actual text of the rules themselves.

2. Saying you need to rely on past experience or "wargame conventions" (which is really "40k prior editions" because each wargame has its own conventions and they don't all agree) is effectively telling all new players: "Get wrecked if you didn't play prior editions or be prepared for your 'elder' players to school you with hidden rules, secret understandings and insist you're wrong because". In essence, it is the absolute worst form of "na-na this is our secret club, no new kids allowed". The rules of the game need to be written in the rules of the game. Period.

Except they're not, and you need to deal with that, because concepts like "on the battlefield" and "automatically hits" aren't defined to laserbeam lawyer-tight standards. Or at all. And things like, well, everything in BCB's signature require an element of common sense and colloquial understanding to even function. So just use common sense and we don't end up with a 7-page discussion about whether automatic hits suddenly make a hit roll (which nobody did before, let's be honest) because some guy on the net said there's possibly a minute technical advantage possible with two edge case Stratagems. There was no debate when the roll gave no reward. This is all just about finding unintended advantage and I find it very silly.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Except they're not, and you need to deal with that, because concepts like "on the battlefield" and "automatically hits" aren't defined to laserbeam lawyer-tight standards. Or at all. And things like, well, everything in BCB's signature require an element of common sense and colloquial understanding to even function. So just use common sense and we don't end up with a 7-page discussion about whether automatic hits suddenly make a hit roll (which nobody did before, let's be honest) because some guy on the net said there's possibly a minute technical advantage possible with two edge case Stratagems. There was no debate when the roll gave no reward. This is all just about finding unintended advantage and I find it very silly.

You remind me of a reporter who wrote an article I read that complained, in all seriousness, that the world was better before we invented light switches because his subjective time in that age was more pleasant.

I believe "automatically hits" is fully defined and functional as long as people don't try to pass off their HYWPI as RAW, same for the Battlefield. It's your (plural) very reliance on unwritten 'conventions' that are, in reality, subjective to you (plural) that causes many of these problems.

One thing you will also have to accept is that people were rolling for this previously. They have been since 7th. The events of your FLGS are not the everyday reality of all FLGS everywhere.

Anyway, we're getting a bit off track. Point being, this particular rule is clear and we don't have an issue unless it's manufactured due to players' own sensibilities. I'll step off the soapbpx now.

Anyway, if the larger threads bother you, leave them be. I enjoy reading these and YMDC would be sad without them.

Audustum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Except they're not, and you need to deal with that, because concepts like "on the battlefield" and "automatically hits" aren't defined to laserbeam lawyer-tight standards. Or at all. And things like, well, everything in BCB's signature require an element of common sense and colloquial understanding to even function. So just use common sense and we don't end up with a 7-page discussion about whether automatic hits suddenly make a hit roll (which nobody did before, let's be honest) because some guy on the net said there's possibly a minute technical advantage possible with two edge case Stratagems. There was no debate when the roll gave no reward. This is all just about finding unintended advantage and I find it very silly.

You remind me of a reporter who wrote an article I read that complained, in all seriousness, that the world was better before we invented light switches because his subjective time in that age was more pleasant.

I believe "automatically hits" is fully defined and functional as long as people don't try to pass off their HYWPI as RAW, same for the Battlefield. It's your (plural) very reliance on unwritten 'conventions' that are, in reality, subjective to you (plural) that causes many of these problems.

One thing you will also have to accept is that people were rolling for this previously. They have been since 7th. The events of your FLGS are not the everyday reality of all FLGS everywhere.

Anyway, we're getting a bit off track. Point being, this particular rule is clear and we don't have an issue unless it's manufactured due to players' own sensibilities. I'll step off the soapbpx now.

Anyway, if the larger threads bother you, leave them be. I enjoy reading these and YMDC would be sad without them.

I totally agree conventions differ. I disagree it's unclear what it means. Such is life. Rolling for auto hits all through an edition is... well, a waste of time if nothing else. Advocating the required common sense approach to make the rules function is not remotely the same as your Luddite reporter example, but whatever. It's patently obvious an element of that is required or several key rules simply do not function - you must agree with that, surely?

Anyway. Write to GW, wait, in all probability get the answer I'm giving you. They seem willing to answer obvious things in FAQs, as the Leman Russ debacle showed, so you might get your wish for 'clarity' even if you don't like the answer. I'll happily eat multiple hats ad Humble Pie if for some reason they decide you need to make rolls for auto-hit guns.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It doesn't break though. the two rules work just fine with each other. Data sheets over ride basic rules.

Then the datasheet that says it hits automatically could override the rule that you always miss on 1s

You do not roll so that is a moot point.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It doesn't break though. the two rules work just fine with each other. Data sheets over ride basic rules.

Then the datasheet that says it hits automatically could override the rule that you always miss on 1s

You do not roll so that is a moot point.

I've yet to see anyone here specify why automatically, means skip rolling. The rules say you roll to hit. Under step there is a section about number of attacks. It says the following;

Number of Attacks
Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made. The number of attacks a model can make with a weapon,
and therefore the number of dice you can roll, is found on the weapon’s profile, along with the weapon’s type. A weapon’s type can impact the number of attacks it can make (see over leaf)

Emphasis mine of course.

Now this debate really is over whether the term automatically just lets you skip rolling altogether, or any roll is considered a hit. Honestly I see both sides as equally plausible RAW because using definitions and connotations (GW often uses the connotations of words not the dictionary definition of words) of automatically you could conceivably and reasonably come to either conclusion. I do believe GW will faq it to say that you cannot dakkadakkadakka burnas. But as written I believe both interpretation are equally valid.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:


I've yet to see anyone here specify why automatically, means skip rolling...

Well the definition of automatically for one...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:


I've yet to see anyone here specify why automatically, means skip rolling...

Well the definition of automatically for one...

Please see the last 4 pages of English definition discussion.

Audustum wrote:
Please see the last 4 pages of English definition discussion.

Yes, I read it, and Automatically makes it so you do not roll.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Please see the last 4 pages of English definition discussion.

Yes, I read it, and Automatically makes it so you do not roll.

Oh dear.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Please see the last 4 pages of English definition discussion.

Yes, I read it, and Automatically makes it so you do not roll.

Look, it's fine if you wanna have your own opinion (however unsupported by evidence it may be), but we ARE a discussion forum so you're gonna have to pony up something more if you actually want to participate.

Audustum wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Please see the last 4 pages of English definition discussion.

Yes, I read it, and Automatically makes it so you do not roll.

Look, it's fine if you wanna have your own opinion (however unsupported by evidence it may be), but we ARE a discussion forum so you're gonna have to pony up something more if you actually want to participate.

The definition of automatically or without input as it were, supports the no rolling... since you do not have any input and yet you know the shots hit.

if auto hit over-rides the 1 always miss rule, it certainly over-rides the have to roll for each shot rule.

We're not told that the rolls don't happen. It certainly implies that it's the case, but we're never explicitly told not to roll the hits, while we are explicitly told to roll them. We thus follow the explicit command of the rules because there's nothing telling us not to roll. Again, the shots hitting without input ("automatically") doesn't mean that the imput mandated doesn't happen, only that it is meaningless for determining whether the shots hit or not (but not for other fringe cases like the one being discussed in this thread).

The rule telling us that rolls of 1 always miss is less specific than the rule telling use that flamer shots always hit (since flamer shots is a subset of all shots) and the "always hits" thus takes precedence over the "1s never hit" rule.

It's highly unlikely that this is what GW intended, but it's the way the rules work.

The rule telling us that rolls of 1 always miss is less specific than the rule telling use that flamer shots always hit.

Explain that to me, because the wording is like 100% the same.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

The rule telling us that rolls of 1 always miss is less specific than the rule telling use that flamer shots always hit.

Explain that to me, because the wording is like 100% the same.

All shots that roll a to hit roll of 1 miss. All flamer shots always hit. The second rule is more specific because it deals with a subset (i.e. it's more specific, whereas the first is more general) of shots. All flamer shots are shots, but not all shots are flamer shots.

Let me see if I understand you. The reason flamer shots don't pay attention to the general shooting rule is that they are a special case. The reason that you have to roll to hit is that flamer shots are no different from normal shooting. Isn't it a little convenient that they have to follow one general but not the other all due to the word "automatic" (which most people would interpret to mean that you just skip the "to hit" subphase and go to the damage subphase).
Your use of the rules is suspect in this instance.

JohnnyHell wrote:Rolling for auto hits all through an edition is... well, a waste of time if nothing else.

The argument being made is that it has always only ever been a waste of time, and so people being smarter than simple robits, have skipped a useless step in pursuit of efiiciency.
Now, however, rolling may not be a waste of time, and people are struggling to recall whether they skipped it because it was efficient, or if they skipped it because the rules explicitly told them to.

Most of your (singular) posts regarding this question, Johnny, has been to suggest that because you have always skipped it, it must therefore have always been the rule to skip it. And you reinforce this by suggesting that even if it weren't the rule to skip it, you would have skipped it because it'd be dumb to have rolled. There's a bit of circular unlogic to that particular sequence, which is why people have been so dismissive of your posts as "subjective" instead of "objective."

DeathReaper wrote:The definition of automatically or without input as it were

Yes, without input from the result of the roll. You don't input the act of rolling into a to-hit machine/equation to determine if a result hits, you input the roll result.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We're not told that the rolls don't happen. It certainly implies that it's the case, but we're never explicitly told not to roll the hits, while we are explicitly told to roll them. We thus follow the explicit command of the rules because there's nothing telling us not to roll. Again, the shots hitting without input ("automatically") doesn't mean that the imput mandated doesn't happen, only that it is meaningless for determining whether the shots hit or not (but not for other fringe cases like the one being discussed in this thread).

The rule telling us that rolls of 1 always miss is less specific than the rule telling use that flamer shots always hit (since flamer shots is a subset of all shots) and the "always hits" thus takes precedence over the "1s never hit" rule.

It's highly unlikely that this is what GW intended, but it's the way the rules work.

Nailed it.

I can not believe that this has got to 7 pages and you still think automatically doesn't mean without rolling dice.

If GW had ment you to roll they would have said
This weapon hits its target regardless of to hit roll result.
This weapon automatically hits its target. Is different and does indeed imply that no to hit roll should be made.
The reason people are struggling for precedent is that in previous editions their was a bespoke section of rules that delt with template weapons which were not subject to normal shooting rules. You would also stuggle to find precedent for rolling to hit rules for template weapons aswell, in fact is specifically told you not to roll.

Ice_can wrote:
I can nit believ that this has got to 7 pages and you still think automatically doesn't mean without rolling dice.

If GW had ment you to roll they would have said
This weapon hits its target regardless of to hit roll result.
This weapon automatically hits its target. Is different and does indead imply that no to hit roll should be made.
The reason people are struggling for precedent is that in previous editions their was a bespoke section of rules that delt with template weapons which were not subject to normal shooting rules. You would also stuggle to find precedent for rolling to hit rules for template weapons aswell.

Except that language is redundant. The shooting phase already commands you to roll.

The language isn't redundant it's just you don't like the idea that it doesn't support your possition.

Also given you select the unit, select the targets, choose ranged weapon at which point the hits automatically rule would come into effect, therefor rendering the to hit roll section redundent and as such you move the to wound section. Hence the requirement to roll the dice is never triggered.

Ice_can wrote:
The language isn't redundant it's just you don't like the idea that it doesn't support your possition.

What is this? I'm talking about your proposed alternative additional language. That's redundant. We're already commanded to roll and automatically doesn't skip that. No redundancy there.

Also given you select the unit, select the targets, choose ranged weapon at which point the hits automatically rule would come into effect, therefor rendering the to hit roll section redundent and as such you move the to wound section. Hence the requirement to roll the dice is never triggered.

Is a nice idea except there's not a shred of RAW to support it. The rules don't say to skip rolling when a result is predetermined. They instead say, quite clearly, that you roll for all shooting attacks. The result is predetermined but the motions are still required. Saying "it's redundant, skip!" is HYWPI, not RAW.

I think we can all agree that we certainly don't PLAY IT as everyone rolls to-hit for every flamer, then ignores the results and moves on to wound rolls. Because, with the exception of Stormtroopers and Dakka Dakka Dakka, it doesn't matter. But when it does matter, yes, roll.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think we can all agree that we certainly don't PLAY IT as everyone rolls to-hit for every flamer, then ignores the results and moves on to wound rolls. Because, with the exception of Stormtroopers and Dakka Dakka Dakka, it doesn't matter. But when it does matter, yes, roll.

Agreed.

Audustum wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think we can all agree that we certainly don't PLAY IT as everyone rolls to-hit for every flamer, then ignores the results and moves on to wound rolls. Because, with the exception of Stormtroopers and Dakka Dakka Dakka, it doesn't matter. But when it does matter, yes, roll.

Agreed.

If my opponent wants to roll his flamers to get bonus hits on a 6, I will also demand that they discard all 1's. Reasoning is that they can't choose to obey only some of the general rules, it has to be all or nothing. If they don't like that they are free to find another opponent.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think we can all agree that we certainly don't PLAY IT as everyone rolls to-hit for every flamer, then ignores the results and moves on to wound rolls. Because, with the exception of Stormtroopers and Dakka Dakka Dakka, it doesn't matter. But when it does matter, yes, roll.

Agreed.

If my opponent wants to roll his flamers to get bonus hits on a 6, I will also demand that they discard all 1's. Reasoning is that they can't choose to obey only some of the general rules, it has to be all or nothing. If they don't like that they are free to find another opponent.

Um... They are obeying the general rules, except when in conflict with more specific rules.

What GENERAL RULE procs extra hits on a 6?